The NRA would like Iowans to add the following words to the state Constitution: “The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and inviolable. Licensing registration, special taxation, or any other measure that suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden.

Except I think there’s a word missing from that, namely “bear.” Couldn’t we make this “acquire, keep, bear, possess, transport, and use arms,” is the same language that’s in the Second Amendment too controversial for Iowa? I mean, I’d love to use the word carry, but why not bear if carry implies too much?

UPDATE: Apparently the full text is as follows:

The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and inviolable. Licensing, registration, special taxation, or any other measure that suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden.

3 Responses to “Pushing RKBA In Iowa”

Left a key word out? That reminds me of something from years ago, I think the 1990’s.

It was an issue of Macleans, the Canadian magazine, with an article about the U.S. 2nd Amendment, which supported the notion of RKBA nullification because of the militia clause.

In support of this logic, the article quoted the 2nd Amendment as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Macleans magazine conveniently left out the words “of the People”!

If you want to know why the California constitution has no right to keep and bear arms provision, it is because Iowan transplants to California dominated the 1850 Constitutional Convention. Why did Iowa (almost alone among states adopting constitutions at the time) not have one? I really don’t know. It is a fascinating mystery.